Re: SCOTUS: L.A.'s COVID Eviction Ban Not a 5th Amendment Taking

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

The Supreme Court-- under both liberal and conservative control over the
years-- has historically been horrible with regard to the Takings Clause in
the 5th Amendment. It's basically lets the government get away with almost
anything. From the appalling Kelo decision to this (both under conservative
Courts, no less), it's like they're trying to nullify the clause altogether.

How is it not a taking for the city to make it illegal for the owners of
private property to evict a tenant who refuses to pay rent? How is that
not the city essentially turning private property into public housing? As
far as I can tell, that's a bright-line example of a taking under the
5th Amendment, but apparently not to the be-robed justices on the Court,
peace be upon them.

Obviously I agree with you here (even though I disagree with you on
Kelo). Were there any important decisions during the Lochner era? At that
time, I could see the Court talking about unconstitutional interference
with the right to contract freely.

Was there something impure about this case? Is there another case moving
through appeals that might be more generic? Or will there have to be a
circuit split to force the Court to accept such a case?